Murphy v. Schneider Nat'l, Inc.

35 Citing briefs

  1. London Market Insurers Including Certain Underwriters at Lloyds of London v. Musket Corporation

    NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case

    Filed January 31, 2017

    whether an adequate alternative forum exists, and (2) whether the balance of private and public interest factors favors dismissal.” Lueck v. Sundstrand Corp., 236 F.3d 1137, 1142-43 (9th Cir. 2001). “[A]s the party defying the forum-selection clause, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that transfer to the forum for which the parties bargained is unwarranted.” Atl. Marine Const. Co., 134 S.Ct. at 581. The plaintiff’s choice of forum “merits no weight.” Id. Moreover, when transfer is sought under a valid forum-selection clause, a court “should not consider arguments about the parties’ private interests,” but rather “must deem the private-interest factors to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum.” Id. at 581- 82.2 To meet its burden, a plaintiff must therefore demonstrate that the public interest Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1140). These reasons are: (1) its incorporation into the contract was the result of fraud, undue influence, or overweening bargaining power; (2) the selected forum is so inconvenient that the complaining party will be practically deprived of its day in court; or (3) enforcement of the clause would contravene a strong public policy of the forum in which the suit is brought. See Bridgemans Svcs. Ltd. v. George Hancock, Inc., No. C14–1714JLR, 2015 WL 4724567, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Aug. 7, 2015) (citing Murphy, 362 at 1140 and Argueta v. Banco Mexicano, S.A., 87 F.3d 320, 325 (9th Cir. 1996)). None of these situations apply, including because Underwriters do not show any significant inconvenience within the Oklahoma courts, and, further, Underwriters could not point to strong public policy of this forum protecting them.

  2. Russ McCullough et al v. World Wrestling Entertainment Inc

    OPPOSITION to MOTION to Transfer Case to U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut 16

    Filed June 22, 2015

    The Court stated that “[i]f as [plaintiff] asserts, [defendant] told him that the contract was not negotiable, [plaintiff] had the opportunity to seek work with other employers if he opposed the forum selection clause.” Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1141. Here, that is quite simply not the case.

  3. Santich v. Blackmer et al

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim

    Filed June 28, 2017

    TO DISMISS CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (3:17-cv-00540-DMS-RBB) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 its day in court. See, e.g., M/S Bremen, 407 U.S. at 18; Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1141. A party has a “heavy burden of proof” to escape a forum selection clause on this ground.

  4. MDL No. 1917 In Re: Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) Antitrust Litigation

    RESPONSE

    Filed November 6, 2013

    4 To the extent Toshiba challenges these assertions, this factual dispute, alone, mandates that Toshiba’s argument be denied. See Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1139. Case3:07-cv-05944-SC Document2195 Filed11/06/13 Page13 of 23 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO TOSHIBA DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS CASE NOS. 13-1173-SC; MDL NO. 1917 8 genesis’ in the contract.” Cedars-Sinai Med.

  5. Kedkad v. Microsoft Corporation, Inc. et al

    MOTION to Dismiss the Complaint; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support Thereof

    Filed March 29, 2013

    This exception has been “narrowly” construed, Argueta, 87 F.3d at 325, and the party opposing a forum selection agreement “bears a ‘heavy burden of proof’ and must ‘clearly show that enforcement would unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.’” Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1140 (quoting Bremen, 407 U.S. at 15). In this case, Plaintiff’s employment contract includes the following provision: Article 10 This Contract is subject to the provisions of the Labor Law No. (58) for the year 1970 Gregorian and its amendments and the law on 2

  6. CBS Broadcasting Inc et al v. Dish Network Corporation et al

    MEMORANDUM in Opposition to MOTION to Dismiss Case Pursuant to Rule 12

    Filed August 3, 2012

    1 Case 2:12-cv-04551-DMG-SH Document 40 Filed 08/03/12 Page 18 of 26 Page ID #:521 clause in DISH's contract with CBS Corporation did not require those copyright claims to be litigated in New York. See also Murphy, supra, 362 F.3d at 1138 ("In the context of a Rule 12(b)(3) motion based upon a forum selection clause, the trial court must draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party and resolve all factual conflicts in favor of the non-moving party.").

  7. Hartstein v. Rembrandt IP Solutions, LLC

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed May 11, 2012

    See Mahoney, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85856, at *24-25. See also Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1141 (“To decline enforcement of a forum selection merely on [a] showing of non-negotiability and power difference . . . would disrupt the settled expectations of the parties here and would threaten the ability of employers to require that disputes with their employees normally be settled in their neighborhood, absent some other exigency.”).

  8. Chris McElroy v. Network Solutions, LLC et al

    MEMORANDUM in Support of MOTION to Dismiss Case or, Alternatively, to Transfer 19

    Filed June 2, 2008

    Because there is a “strong presumption in favor of enforcing forum selection clauses,” the plaintiff bears a “heavy burden of proof” and must “clearly show that enforcement would be unreasonable and unjust, or that the clause was invalid for such reasons as fraud or over-reaching.” Murphy, 362 F.3d at 1138-41. Plaintiff must show that the agreed-to forum must be “so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [plaintiff] will for all practical purposes be deprived of his day in court.”

  9. Fair Isaac Corporation v. Pci-U, Llc

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

    Filed June 30, 2017

    The burden is on the plaintiff to show that venue is proper as to defendant, and the allegations in plaintiff’s complaint “are not deemed or presumed to be true.” Kelly v. Echols, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 37325, at *41 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2005) (dismissing plaintiff’s complaint without prejudice on finding improper venue), citing Murphy v. Schneider Nat’l, Inc., 362 F.3d 1133, 1137 (9th Cir. 2003). Here, and as set forth in more detail above, Defendant is not subject to personal jurisdiction in California.

  10. Klecher v. Conmed Corporation

    MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Pursuant to FRCP 12

    Filed May 22, 2017

    docx selection clause unenforceable. Shute, 499 U.S. at 595; Murphy v. Schneider Nat'l, Inc. (9th Cir. 2004) 362 F.3d 1133, 1141 (“a differential in power or education on a non-negotiated contract will not vitiate a forum selection clause.”). Murphy is instructive.